Summary: There was no fault by the Council in how it decided to allow a trader to remain on its approved traders scheme.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council allowed a trader to stay on its ‘Buy with confidence’ scheme when he had displayed a misleading logo about his qualifications on his works van.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr B. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have taken all comments into account before reaching a final decision on this complaint.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. The ‘Buy with Confidence’ scheme is a national scheme of approved traders run by respective local authorities. I have considered the Council’s terms and conditions of the scheme, which traders are expected to adhere to.
6. Mr B had some work done by a trader. Mr B says that he hired the trader because he had told him that he had many years’ experience and had a City and Guilds qualification. Mr B was dissatisfied with the work. He made some enquiries and found that the trader displayed a City and Guilds logo on his van but did not have those qualifications.
7. Mr B complained to the Council. It investigated the issue with the City and Guilds organisation. It confirmed that the trade had been awarded accreditation over 20 years ago, whilst he was working for another company under a superseded scheme. The organisation told the Council that in these circumstances it would not count as a qualification. The Council asked the trader to remove the logo from the van, which he did. The Council decided not to remove the trader from the scheme.
8. The Council advised Mr B and also told him that it would only remove a member from the scheme for activities outside his business if they were of a violent, fraudulent or dishonest nature. Mr B asked the Council to reconsider its decision. He said that the trader had also extended his own land beyond the legal boundary.
9. The Council investigated the outcome of the land dispute, and also established the Council had not received any other planning complaints against the trader. It also established that it had not received any other relevant complaints about the trader. The Council concluded that this issues raised did not warrant removal from the ‘Buy with Confidence Scheme’.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mr B?

10. It is for the Council to decide whether to allow the trader to remain on the scheme in accordance with the terms of the membership. The Ombudsman’s task is to make sure the Council considered all the relevant factors when it arrived at its decision.
11. In this case, the Council investigated whether the trader could display the logo and took action based on the awarding organisation’s advice. Mr B asked the Council to consider again whether it should remove the trader from the scheme due to the fact that he had wrongly displayed the logo and that he had wrongly developed land outside his boundary.
12. The Council had already considered the issue of the wrongly displayed logo and decided that it was sufficient to remove it from the van. From its checks, it understood the trader did not have a website by which the public could be misled. The Council also considered the land matter and found that this had been resolved. It investigated whether there were any other complaints or issues with the trader, either about his work or outside of this, and found no relevant issues. There was no fault in how the Council decided to allow the trader to remain part of the scheme.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman